The initiative right2remix.org calls for European lawmakers to adopt remix rights in European copyright legislation. On this portal, the German civil rights organisation Digitale Gesellschaft e. V., who launched the initiative, explains: "We live in an age of remix. Creativity and culture have always drawn from previous works, but with the Internet and digital technologies, the creative re-use of works has been taken to a whole new level. More people are able to edit and share a greater range of works than ever before."

The campaign has a short manifesto and a petition, as well as a suggested route to achieving its goals. This would be to add additional exceptions, including the right to remix, to Article 5 of the EU Copyright Directive, which already lists the possible exceptions and limitations to copyright. EU countries could then modify their national laws to legalize many everyday online activities that currently infringe copyrights. Here are couple of right2remix.org' s other suggestions:

Extended quotation rights: Currently, quotation rights are generally very narrowly defined, and do not extend to all types of works, excluding, for example, movies. Furthermore, ancillary copyrights often prevent the quotation of existing works, as is the case with samples of musical works, for instance. A reform of quotation rights is overdue and needs to account for different types of works and quotations.

Redefine the boundaries of free usage: Creators should be permitted to use works as an inspiration, as long as the borrowings are secondary to the individuality of the new work. However, the remix, by definition, preserves at least part of the originality of the quoted work, though this does not mean that the remix is less original. The originality of a work should be assessed independently from the question whether the inspirational works are still recognizable. Particularly in musical works, we call for the legalization of samples, which in case of commercial use could be compensated using compulsory licensing models.

Those might seem overly-bold objectives, but the main driving force behind right2remix.org includes some of the people that led the European revolt against ACTA last year, and look what happened there....

from the that's-insane dept

We just wrote about the ridiculousness of Barrett Brown's case, in which he's been in jail and facing a very long sentence mainly for copying a URL from one place to another, but also because the feds have been seeking a media gag. Tragically, the court has now granted that gag order. Neither Brown nor his legal team is allowed to speak to the media:

No person covered by this order shall make any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record, that could interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice Defendant, the Government, or the administration of justice....

This gag order seems somewhat ridiculous. The idea that having Brown or his legal team talking to the press would somehow unfairly bias the jury in his case is ridiculous. It's perfectly reasonable to expect Brown and his legal team to try to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the case, and the only purpose of this sort of gag order is to silence the press and keep the story from getting the kind of attention it deserves, as yet another example of prosecutorial overreach by the DOJ.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Technology has largely helped make our lives better. Sure, there are a few cases where technology has caused some major problems, but it's not easy putting the genie back in the bottle. Mark Zuckerberg might want to keep pushing the internet to more and more people, but there are some folks out there who want to go even further. Why limit ourselves to sharing technology with other humans? Let's give some technology to other animals. Here are just a few examples of people giving animals some technological help.

from the not-going-to-end-well dept

Ray Kelly is the NYPD Commissioner with a heart of gold and a severe case of the flip-flops when it comes to how security technology in his city is used. The potential DHS chief candidate is a huge fan of the complete failure known as "stop and frisk", as well as all the cameras and license plate readers the city has at its disposal, except when that technology is turned towards his officers. It's classic Orwellian thinking, in which LEOs and the government get all the toys while you have to find the blind spots in all the cameras just to write in your journal. That journal these days meaning the internet, which of course doesn't really offer any blind spots.

And that's how we get headlines today about Ray Kelly apparently declaring war on someone going by the handle AfroDuck, which is exactly the comic relief the world needs right now. Who is AfroDuck, you ask? Well, he or she is an idiot who decided to circumnavigate Manhattan, a twenty-six-plus mile trip, in just twenty-four minutes. Then, because idiocy and internet-braggery go hand in hand like spaghetti and meatballs, AfroDuck uploaded a dash-cam video of the feat to the internet.

The anonymous speed demon averaged about 66 mph during the late-night circuit, which was captured on a dramatic dashboard-cam video and posted to YouTube under the username AfroDuckProduction. The drive breaks the previous mark of 26 minutes set in 2010. In both runs, the drivers cut out the top of Manhattan above the Cross Bronx Expressway.

So, let's make this clear up front: this was a stupid thing to do. And, no, I'm not going to listen to anyone tell me about how a good driver can do this safely, or how over-protective we've become as a society. Shut up, you're wrong. This is Manhattan and you shouldn't be making speed runs, period, paragraph, full stop. And, while AfroDuck is getting the headlines for this, it should be noted that this isn't a particularly new concept. A few years ago, Wired covered a driver who was trying to break the cross-country driving record, noting that earlier on, he'd been focused on doing a similar speed shot around Manhattan.

Having said that, AfroDuck may have a serious problem.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly promised to hunt down the dangerous driver, saying, “We now have license-plate readers in the city that will assist in this type of investigation.”

Other reports have officers stating that Ray Kelly has "declared war on AfroDuck" and plans on using all of that shiny awesome tech at his disposal to go after the speed demon. And, if their willingness to use stop and frisk as a law enforcement technique is any indication, I doubt the NYPD will mind terribly utilizing all of those license plate cameras to build at least a reckless driving case against him.

“You frankly can’t identify who I am by just looking at the video,” AfroDuck boasted to the car-geek Web site Jalopnik about his Aug. 26 ride, “and records were meant to be broken.” AfroDuck used a 2006 BMW Z4 for the breakneck drive.

That may be, but the NYPD likely can review all the cameras they have to find the license plate of the Z4 that was barreling through Manhattan sometime in the past few weeks and that plate will point them back to AfroDuck. As I said, this driver is an idiot, but it might be new territory to have the chief of police going after an individual simply for bragging online about a speed run and then using all kinds of new technology to do it. It's a brave new surveillance state world, friends, which means you just can't brag about your dumb crimes online anymore.

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Here's another wacky one involving some parody Twitter accounts. Apparently some local aldermen (city council) in Starkville, Mississippi have become upset about some parody accounts on Twitter. One of them, David Little, filed a police complaint leading to a wacky investigation that appears to include a police detective setting up a fake Twitter account himself, claiming to be a reporter, and asking the guy behind one of the parody accounts to call him -- giving out the known phone number of the detective. Either way, the police then went to court, and stunningly got Judge Jim Kitchens to order Twitter to reveal who's behind the parody accounts. That's not how it's supposed to work. Anonymity and parody are protected forms of speech, and just because you have a local official who doesn't like being parodied doesn't mean that a court can just order the person unmasked. There's a long string of First Amendment cases that note that anonymity should be strongly protected.

The law that is used to claim this unmasking is legit is one focused on outlawing real impersonation, not parody. And as Adam Steinbaugh explains, the order is almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment, and seems to twist the local statute (which is also written too broadly in the first place). The whole thing is a mess, basically, where it appears you have local politicians who can't handle being parodied, a bizarre "investigation" into the accounts, combined with a judge who signs off on a First Amendment-defying order. What a complete mess. Thankfully, it sounds like a bunch of lawyers are jumping in and offering to help out whoever is behind those parody accounts.

from the say-what-now dept

It appears that, for the first time, President Obama has, ever so slightly, conceded that perhaps laws need to be tightened up to prevent abuses by the NSA. Of course, that came immediately after he insisted (falsely) that the current checks and balances were working and that the NSA isn't spying on Americans. This is a flat out lie from the President, and people should call him on it. He's lying.

"What I can say with confidence is that when it comes to our domestic operation, the concerns that people have back home in the United States of America, that we do not surveil the American people or persons within the United States, that there are a lot of checks and balances in place designed to avoid a surveillance state," Obama said. "There have been times where the procedures, because these are human endeavors, have not worked the way they should and we had to tighten them up. And I think there are legitimate questions that have been raised about the fact that as technology advances and capabilities grow, it may be that the laws that are currently in place are not sufficient to guard against the dangers of us being able to track so much."

Once again, that first part -- the part he says "with confidence" -- is a lie. We've already seen plenty of evidence that while the NSA insists that it doesn't surveil people within the US, it appears to do so regularly. Of course, since it classifies these as "incidental," it doesn't think they count, but they do. No, it may not be watching every single thing that US citizens do, but US citizens' data are clearly captured and analyzed quite frequently.

That said, the second part of that statement is actually a tiny step forward, in that it's President Obama actually signalling -- for the first time -- that the program has been abused and that new rules are possible. Many people will complain that it's such a minor statement (and coming right after a flat out lie, not particularly trustworthy), but it is more or less a signal that the President is likely resolved to agree to changes in how the NSA operates. Now the fight will be over what kinds of changes. The administration will seek to minimize those changes, but just the admission that changes need to happen is at least a baby step in the right direction.

from the it's-my-way-or-IT'S-MY-WAY,-dammit! dept

Maybe billionaires are just used to getting their way. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has seen his and Kelly's precious stop-and-frisk program declared unconstitutional by a federal court and face additional curbs via legislation passed by the New York City Council with a veto-proof vote. (Not that it stopped him from threatening those who voted for it… and vetoing them on sheer principle.)

Despite the number of legal attacks on the program, Bloomberg still feels its an unassailable part of modern policing. And as the opposition has continued to mount, Bloomberg's defensive actions and statements have taken on a degree of stubborn petulance. Everyone's wrong but him and his personal army.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg sued the City Council Tuesday in a bid to overturn a law that aims to curb the police department's use of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.

The council's votes came less than two weeks after a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the department's stop-and-frisk policy, in which officers stop people in high-crime areas suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The policy was thrown out on the grounds that it disproportionately targets minorities.

The council reaffirmed their passage of the measure 10 days ago, along with another bill creating an independent watchdog to monitor the New York Police Department, overriding the mayor's veto, despite his warnings that the legislation would threaten public safety.

For a man who constantly claims his first concern is public safety when defending stop-and-frisk, he sure doesn't seem to care much for them otherwise. Bloomberg gives every appearance that he believes he owns the city he's supposed to be serving -- and that what he says goes, no matter how many people object.

By filing this lawsuit, he's basically attacking the city's own governing body (another set of servants who represent the public) for daring to undercut his decrees. The suit's success rests on an assertion Bloomberg certainly finds appealing -- that state criminal procedure laws trump a city's attempt to undercut his unconstitutional program.

The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, asserted the bill was invalid because it is superseded by the state's criminal procedure law, or CPL, which governs the standards and procedures that police officers must follow.

"The CPL preempts the field of criminal procedure legislation and prevents local legislatures, including the council, from passing local laws in this area," the lawsuit said.

This is a very interesting tactic. Well, "interesting" isn't really the best word. Perhaps "disingenuous" or "hypocritical" or "transparently self-serving" would be better substitutes. Whether or not the mayor's legal argument has any weight remains to be seen but, in plain English, using the mayor's own assertions, this is what he's arguing.

The city council cannot pass local laws that address areas covered by state criminal procedure laws -- and he's using this argument to defend a local program. Stop-and-frisk is not used statewide. It is solely a NYPD program. If that's the case, it could reasonably be argued that the city council does indeed have the power to pass laws affecting purely local police programs, such as stop-and-frisk.

But as the city's counsel states here, Bloomberg can make a pretty strong case otherwise:

Michael Cardozo, the city's top lawyer, said in a statement that the lawsuit was necessary to ensure the council did not overstep its authority.

"Local legislative bodies should not be passing laws affecting the regulation of law enforcement activity in this way," he said. "This is a matter governed by the state legislature."

Cardozo calls the council's bill "regulation of law enforcement activity." Utilizing this broad term, the council would be overstepping its limits.The way the council's legislation is written doesn't specifically target the program itself, but rather the methods deployed for the stops and searches, and even those aren't addressed directly. It's more of a tangential approach that broadens the recourse options for citizens who feel they've been unfairly treated by these tactics.

Bloomberg is likely relying on the inherent vagueness of the council's legislation to work against it in this lawsuit, a vagueness that was likely intentional as the broader wording helped trim down the number of potential loopholes the NYPD could exploit in order to escape filed lawsuits.

If this lawsuit goes Bloomberg's way, it hardly looks like the end of the attacks on stop-and-frisk, but it does perhaps signal the end of its rigorous defense from the mayor's office. Two mayoral candidates have stated their displeasure with the program.

This raises all sorts of questions, none of them good. There's nothing defamatory in the video at all. I don't care how ridiculous Canada's defamation laws are (and they are kind of ridiculous), this video isn't defaming anything. It doesn't name a particular cable company, and it's clearly parody anyway. It makes no statements of fact about any particular cable company anyway. Furthermore, it's clearly focused on the US, not Canada (at 24 seconds it shows a map of the US). So, it seems like an interesting question to know who made the defamation claim against the video? Furthermore, this is the first time I've seen that particular error message on a YouTube video (it's usually a copyright claim). I'm curious as to how carefully YouTube reviews the defamation claims and if the counternotice process is the same as with a copyright claim. Either way, it seems like whoever decided to file such a claim on the video basically decided to censor a video because they don't like what it says... and, of course, that's only going to serve to give it that much more attention (yet again).

Update: YouTube has now reinstated the video, telling us: "Sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed or blocked mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it." It's still not clear who made the original defamation claim, unfortunately.

from the there's-a-movie-plot-in-here-somewhere dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about an interesting lawsuit filed against Warner/Chappell Music, claiming that the song Happy Birthdayis in the public domain, and Warner owes millions in fraudulently collected licenses. As you may or may not know, Warner has some rather dubious claims over the copyright to the song, and despite pretty thorough research showing that the song is almost certainly in the public domain, it's also the most profitable song in history, earning millions of dollars every year for Warner. So with this class action lawsuit filed against it, you didn't think that Warner was going to give up easily, did you?

Of course its initial response ignores pretty much all of the evidence concerning why there is no actual copyright on the song, but instead focuses on some technicalities to try to dismiss most of the non-copyright claims and then limit the potential liability by arguing that the statute of limitations only goes back three years. It does promise to have a more complete response to the rather compelling evidence that the entire copyright is completely bogus. However, it seems that even the arguments it's making to limit the lawsuit here are suspect. Oddly, Warner appears to be flipping the usual arguments on their head. Copyright preemption and the statute of limitations generally are used when it comes to infringement claims, rather than totally bogus claims of holding a copyright there is no copyright on (i.e., copyfraud). As such, it seems there's a decent argument that Warner's arguments shouldn't apply here. Preemption is built around the idea that federal copyright law preempts any attempt to do end runs around federal law by throwing in some questionable state copyright claims. But that's not the situation here. Here, the state claims are not about state copyright claims, but rather things like fraud and unfair competition that come about due to flat out lying about holding a copyright for something that's in the public domain. That's not trying to "preempt" federal copyright law, but rather to argue that lying about holding a copyright and shaking down all sorts of people for singing Happy Birthday is a form of fraud.

As for the statute of limitations claim, again the statute of limitations is generally focused on the time frame of some infringement, rather than the timeframe of non-infringement which people only later discovered was licensed under fraudulent claims of potential infringement. Also, the case law on statute of limitations claims in copyright is a complete mess at times, and it sometimes depends on when the plaintiff discovered the violation. So, while Warner may be able to knock out a few minor issues with this stance, it's certainly not a slam dunk, and they're still facing the main issue, which is the overwhelming and somewhat damning evidence that their entire claim to holding the copyright is a complete and total sham -- a sham used to shakedown films, TV programs, restaurants and venues for millions of dollars.

And, of course, there's just the general sentiment of the public, who seem to recognize, implicitly, that claiming a copyright on a song as simple and iconic as Happy Birthday (which has been around for well over a century, long after any copyright should be expired) is somewhere up there on the scale of evil with kicking kittens for sport.

from the wait,-really? dept

Another day, another wacky copyright lawsuit. Ministry of Sound, the well-known nightclub/record label in London that puts together various compilations of dance music is suing Spotify, claiming copyright infringement in a case that will fascinate copyright fanatics. This one goes a few layers deep, so stick with it: MoS is not suing because the music on Spotify is unauthorized. Nor is it suing because of anything that Spotify itself did. Rather, it's suing because some users of Spotify have put together and published "playlists" (a feature found on pretty much any music playing software ever) that mimic some of the compilations that MoS has released. Again, the music itself is all legally authorized and licensed to be on Spotify. The complaint from MoS is merely that some Spotify users have put them together in the same order. And this is somehow an outrage and copyright infringement:

Chief executive Lohan Presencer claims that his company has been asking Spotify to remove the playlists – some of which include "Ministry of Sound" in their titles – since 2012

"It's been incredibly frustrating: we think it's been very clear what we're arguing, but there has been a brick wall from Spotify," said Presencer.

While US law does cover some very loose copyright protection for "compilations," UK law may be worse. As we covered a few years ago, there was a ridiculous case in the UK, in which a court argued that putting together a list of facts could create a copyright. The case involved football schedules, and the court ridiculously said:

"The process of preparing fixture lists involves very significant labor and skill in satisfying the multitude of often competing requirements of those involved," Judge Christopher Floyd said. "(It is) not mere sweat of the brow, by which I mean the application of rigid criteria to the processing of data. The quality of the solution depends in part on the skill of those involved."

It seems quite likely, that MoS is relying on this kind of language to make its argument, though I'd argue that all this case does is highlight just how ridiculous that original ruling is. Yes, there can be creativity involved in putting together a playlist, but that doesn't mean it should receive a copyright.

And then there's the entirely separate issue of secondary liability. Why should Spotify be liable for how its users group their songs together? Should Spotify actually be forced to police users and stop them from putting various combinations of songs together in a particular order? Does anyone actually think that's a useful purpose for copyright?

Once again, we see what copyright is turned into: a tool for control and stopping what most people think is basic human activity. Putting together authorized, legal songs in a particular order? How could anyone think that should be infringing?

from the prosecutorial-overreach dept

We've covered the immensely troubling case against Barrett Brown a few times here. Brown is the journalist and activist who was arrested on a series of highly questionable charges, mostly focused on taking the astounding step of copying a URL pointing to a bunch of Stratfor emails that people in Anonymous had hacked, and placing it in a chat room that Brown managed, to try to crowdsource information about intelligence community contractors, known as Project PM. No one has accused Brown of being responsible for the hack -- but rather just posting the link to the hacked contents, which the feds are claiming is a federal crime, in part because the data it pointed to contained credit card info. There are two other charges, including concealing evidence (he put his laptop in his mother's dish cabinet) and "threatening a federal agent" based on a rambling video he had posted to YouTube, which was probably inappropriate, but was in response to being constantly harassed and threatened himself for merely reporting on the various information that had been leaked. Glenn Greenwald's summary from earlier this year is well worth reading.

The incredible thing is that the linking to leaked materials, including those that reveal hacked documents and things like passwords is fairly common. As the EFF pointed out a few weeks back, if what Brown did with the link to Stratfor emails was a crime then plenty of other publications are guilty of the same thing, including The Daily Beast and Buzzfeed, who both posted links to what some claimed were passwords for email accounts of Congressional staffers.

Even more ridiculous, however, is that the government is seeking to silence the media from reporting on the case, claiming, ridiculously that press coverage related to the case is something it can blame on Brown himself because various publications are reporting on the ridiculous details of his arrest and the charges against him.

Today, there is the latest hearing in his case, in which the US government is asking the court to issue a gag order barring both Brown and his lawyer from "making any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, Internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record."

Think about this for a second. Not only is the main charge against him for the "crime" of copying a URL from one place on the internet to another, but now the government is actively seeking to silence the media coverage about this case.

from the does-that-make-us-pushers? dept

It's been a while since we heard supposedly smart health professionals, who are clearly addicted to making claims about addiction, discuss internet addictions. You may recall that a couple of years back, China declared that spending six hours in a day on the internet meant you were addicted. Even some of our domestic psychiatrists were lobbying for an addiction to the internet being included in the DSM book, which is the kind of light reading that would give a hypochondriac a case of the tight-pants. Sadly, to date, the concept of an overarching addiction to the internet hasn't been deemed fit for inclusion.

The voluntary, 10-day program is set to open on Sept. 9 at the Behavioral Health Services at Bradford Regional Medical Center. The program was organized by experts in the field and cognitive specialists with backgrounds in treating more familiar addictions like drug and alcohol abuse.

"[Internet addiction] is a problem in this country that can be more pervasive than alcoholism," said Dr. Kimberly Young, the psychologist who founded the non-profit program. "The Internet is free, legal and fat free."

As someone who has to use the internet for most of the day due to employment requirements, you can understand how worried I am about this. Would my time be better spent drinking sweet, awesome scotch, or snorting a couple of lines off my desk? It's hard to know for sure, but I suppose I should probably switch the screen off and stop writing this post right now. But... I can't. Writing internet posts is so alluring. Maybe writing is an addiction, too? After all, I really like doing it, so it has to be bad, right? I wonder what makes the scary internet suffer its own unique addictive traits, oh super-wise medical professionals?

Most people with a severe Internet addiction have some type of undiagnosed psychiatric disorder or personality problem, according to Dr. Roger Laroche, the medical director of the department of psychiatry at Bradford Regional. Each patient in the program, which costs $14,000 out-of-pocket because insurance does not cover the expense, will be psychologically evaluated after undergoing a 'digital detox.'

Oh. So internet addiction isn't actually a "thing", but rather it's a mistaken diagnosis for symptoms of other entirely separate mental health disorders. Well, that makes a lot more sense. After all, we don't see a person who cuts their arms habitually and say they're addicted to cutting themselves. We say they're depressed, or suffer from bi-polar disorder, or an eating disorder, or whatever. It's a symptom, not a disease. What may look like internet addiction is really just a symptom of something else. But, hey, why not charge $14k for a program that isn't covered by insurance, even though a properly diagnosed disorder would likely be covered?

Duke University's chairman of the DSM-IV, Dr. Allen Frances, sums it up nicely.

"If we can be addicted to gambling and the Internet, why not also include addictions to shopping, exercise, sex, work, golf, sunbathing, model railroading, you name it? All passionate interests are at risk for redefinition as mental disorders."

I'd be diagnosed with addiction to at least four of those, so I'm either screwed or I just have a lot of really enjoyable hobbies in my life. You pick.

from the the-fundamental-disconnect-between-public-and-public-servants dept

Facial recognition software is controversial, to say the least. The privacy implications run deep even when deployed in very public areas, as it basically allows for suspicionless searches of anyone whose face is visible to cameras. The feet-on-the-ground equivalent would be having officers canvass a public area, grabbing IDs from anyone it wishes and running their records. Pretty much unacceptable, even considering the potential upside of the software to catch suspected criminals or stumble upon people with outstanding warrants.

Without informing the public and without first reviewing security rules for the system, Ohio law enforcement officers started using facial recognition technology more than two months ago, scanning databases of driver's license photos and police mug shots to identify crime suspects, The Enquirer has learned.

This is fairly common with controversial measures like these: deploy first, ask for permission/set guidelines later. We've seen the same thing happen repeatedly, whether its domestic drone use or the deployment of quasi-legal technology like Stingray devices that mimic cell phone towers. This isn't purely a local phenomenon. National agencies are just as prone to rolling out new methods and devices, and only begin to consider privacy implications or the need to establish guidelines after a public outcry, much as (almost) happened here.

Ohio's new facial recognition system launched June 6, without the knowledge of the attorney general or his chief operating officer. Upon learning about it two weeks later, after it had already been used for 900 facial recognition searches, top officials debated turning it off.

On June 20, during a meeting with DeWine, Chief Operating Officer Kimberly Murnieks sent an urgent e-mail to DeWine's chief information officer and top deputies: "First question: Can we turn this off for now? I am told it has been 'live' for two weeks. Who approved that go live?"

No approval. No period for public comment. No notification to the top cop in the state, or any other top official for that matter. Ohio's law enforcement agencies simply decided to go autonomous, claiming that it was an "almost IT-driven thing." Yep. Completely unstoppable. IT informed the heads of Ohio's Bureau of Criminal Investigation that the system was ready to go live -- and that was all the top Bureau officials needed to hear. The "on" button was pushed and a briefing with the state AG was set up… for two weeks later -- after 900 searches had already been performed.

In the June 20 briefing with DeWine, officials quickly adopted a practice of calling the launch a "test" although some continued to be nervous about whether the system should have been launched before new policies were created.

COO Murnieks suggested the system be taken offline until policies updated, but apparently, the "off" button was nowhere to be found. The system stayed online. While the COO seemed suitably concerned that facial recognition technology was being deployed without public notification or pertinent policies in place, AG DeWine was more blasé about the whole experience, deflecting criticism using the elementary-school-level "well, everyone else is doing it" argument.

Before June 20, "I didn't know it was up live, but I wasn't concerned that it was up live," DeWine said. "Whether you call it a test phase or don't call it a test phase, if we find something (wrong), we would change it, and if we find something alarming, we would shut it down. ...

"The fact that over half of states use (facial recognition technology), the fact that the FBI has used it, the fact that we have controls in (the online database) that work in the sense that we could prosecute people ... all of those indicate to me that what we have is adequate."

Of all the poor logic contained in these statements, all of it stands out as being particularly idiotic. Every single bit. DeWine may believe two wrongs don't make a right, but apparently a handful of wrongs adds up just fine.

DeWine feels it's perfectly acceptable to make mistakes that could affect seriously members of the public. Not only that, but he seems to feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the public as a testing ground without even providing them a safety net of applicable data policies, safeguards or scope limitations. Pointing to other states, many of whom rolled out their programs more responsibly, is nothing more than verbal sleight-of-hand designed to diffuse outrage. (Notice I didn't say "defuse." What he's doing is spreading the blame, not placating the masses.)

And I have absolutely no idea what this phrase is supposed to mean, other than the prosecution side is always right:

...the fact that we have controls in (the online database) that work in the sense that we could prosecute people..

Because it can be used to catch "bad guys," all else is negligible? Really? If so, when you're done with screwing over your own constituents, there's probably a prime spot in the NYPD for you. They like people who prize crime statistics above all else, even the Constitution.

Plus, he's happy with everything being "adequate." That's a government official for you -- never strive for more than you can obtain via stasis.

DeWine led off the previous statement by saying the program simultaneously is and isn't a "test phase," and followed it up by telling everyone why it really doesn't matter what "phase" the program's currently in.

He said the system is still in a trial phase, but said its scope or use isn't expected to change after the trial period ends.

Great. So the minimal nod towards stress-testing the system meant nothing. Good to know. DeWine caps this all off by throwing a chewed-almost-beyond-recognition bone to the public's concerns.

"Should we have talked about it the day it went live?" DeWine said of the facial recognition system. "You could argue that."

We are arguing that, you dolt. The problem is you, and many others like you (say, the heads of the Ohio's law enforcement agencies), can't be bothered to check with the public until it's thrusting microphones in your face or calling at all hours demanding an explanation. You and many others like you (say, the heads of the state's law enforcement agencies) are public servants. Apparently, the COO of the state is the only one actually looking out for the people she's serving. The rest of you all figure you know better and can roll out controversial programs without so much as obligatory "here's what we're doing: deal with it" press release. Because crime.

Please note that members of the group frequently wears masks covering their entire faces.

This is an important distinction, as certain members of the surveillance unit might have been more inclined to snoop on more easily identified, unmasked citizens. Now, I can understand why the NYPD might want to uncover the identities of Anonymous members as the (not really an) organization has wreaked a lot of havoc in various areas, most of them online. But there is something unsettling about a police force attending demonstrations and rallies to perform intel rather than to keep the peace.

But actions taken during Occupy Wall Street show that the PD's agenda usually means treating protesters (as well as anyone with a camera) as criminals. And attempting to "unmask" participants in an Anonymous rally lumps all attendees in with the activist group, even if many of them have never actively participated in any illegal activities. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Anonymous' "structure," i.e., there is none. There's no "head" to capture and mount on the metaphorical wall. There's also no "tail" to drag off to HQ and sweat down in hopes of it offering up higher-ranked members.

While it's true that you may find some criminals within the ranks of protesters for any cause, heading into protests with the intent of compiling a "To Arrest" list puts police officers into entirely the wrong mindset. There's enough "us vs. them" attitude floating around already. This simply creates an antagonism that skews the perception of every witnessed activity. Peaceful protests are now just riots waiting to happen. It's not people united for a single cause, it's a hive mind operating under a devious directive. The whole thing is unhealthy for both the police and the public.

Also worth noting is the fact that this occurred before the Occupy protests, when Anonymous targeted the NYPD for its acts of brutality against the protesters, meaning this attempt to unmask members wasn't a retaliatory act (which isn't OK but is at least a rationale) or an attempt to find those who made threats against the department.

That being said, the surveillance request (what there is of it) contains the following sentence, which is notable both for a.) the inventive disgustingness of the act and b.) not being accompanied by a drunk and disorderly citation.

Most recently, a member ran into the church covered in vaseline and pubic hairs.

Most notably, there's no reason given for the surveillance unless you count Vaseline Man as a valid impetus. The entire form is almost completely blank, giving the whole thing an appearance of "just because." Maybe the NYPD felt No One's Personal Army posed a threat to Mayor Bloomberg's Personal Army. Or maybe the Church of Scientology wields just as much power as people attribute to it.

from the time-to-get-some-press-training dept

Over the entire course of the Obama administration's terms in office, there's been something of a conflict. While there's been a ridiculous amount of secrecy -- from NSA spying scandals, to refusals to respond to FOIA requests -- at the same time, President Obama also set up a federal CTO and federal CIO position, each of which have had two occupants who seem very, very focused on increasing openness and transparency in government (and who really do seem sincere). Over the past few years, they've put together a variety of projects trying to help provide more open data as it relates to the government (though, it appears they've run into the expected frustrations of dealing with one of the largest, if not the largest, bureaucracies in the world).

But given the conflicting messages -- openness over here, extreme secrecy over there -- it was inevitable that someone would be asked a question about this. Fast Company has an interview with the current federal CIO, Steve Van Roekel, where he's asked about the NSA's surveillance and the "conflict" between openness and privacy. Van Roekel seems to go out of his way to not actually say anything about the NSA, while at the same time (we assume) inadvertently pointing out that tiny bits of metadata, when combined with other tiny bits of metadata can reveal a ton of information about someone -- something that defenders of the "just metadata" regime have been trying to pretend isn't true:

I think this notion of the U.S. government treating data as an asset that’s open to everyone is interesting. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention what’s happening with the NSA controversy--it seems like you have to walk a fine line between being open while also protecting citizens’ privacy.

One of the important parts of formulating the digital strategy and open data policy was to be very clear to people on two fronts. One was that with government data, you need to have a process by which we are not releasing any data that is confidential, that violates any citizens’ or Americans’ privacy, or has any national security implications.

The second part is examining something called the mosaic effect. That means if I released some data independently, there is high likelihood that that data released doesn’t have any private or publicly identifiable information in it. But if I release that data along with another piece of data, and overlay those two sources, then I could garner some identifiable information. For example, if I have a report on geographically dispersed diseases in this relatively unpopulated state, like North Dakota, then release another piece of data that details who lives in certain census blocks, you could suddenly tell who has that disease. That’d break personally identifiable information guidelines. So we’ve asked agencies to set up governance and be very diligent on issues related to privacy, confidentiality, or national security.

How have the recent NSA leaks affected that strategy? Have you tweaked anything in your approach?

Our conversation today isn’t about the NSA, but I can say that our diligence hasn’t waned even before any of this related to protecting confidentiality. The mission here--the mission of government--is how do we best serve the American people, and make sure they are safe, secure, and getting benefits from the services the government provides. That requires a lot of good governance, good security, good cyber-security, and really smart thinking about how we release data--making sure we don’t release any personally identifiable information or anything that would lose the trust of the American citizen.

Note the bolded part of the first answer above. That's the very point that critics of the fact that the government has been collecting so much metadata have been pointing out -- but it's a point that the federal government, including Van Roekel's boss, have been actively denying for months. They keep insisting that "just metadata" doesn't violate anyone's privacy. Yet here is Van Roekel, who understands this stuff, straight up admitting what plenty of people have realized: metadata can reveal an awful lot, especially when you have a few different collections of metadata that you can overlay with one another.